Lawrence, J H v Federal Commissioner of Taxation & Ors [1995] FCA 30

Lawrence, J H v Federal Commissioner of Taxation & Ors [1995] FCA 30

The application failed because, on the proper construction of the correspondence, the Commissioner's letter did not make or convey the alleged refusal of the s. 206 application. In any event, the matters put before the Commissioner were skeletal, did not identify grounds of objection or a definite payment proposal, and lacked any rational tendency to produce the extension sought; any alleged error was not shown to have materially affected the result and it would not be a proper exercise of discretion to set aside the decision and require reconsideration of that particular application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 January 1995
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Administrative Action Concerning an Application Under S. 206 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 / Reasons for Judgment on Urgent Amended Application for an Order of Review
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Pay Income Tax' 'default Assessments' 'section 218 Notices' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations' 'materiality of Alleged Error' 'discretion to Refuse Relief']
['taxation' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['extension of Time to Pay Income Tax' 'default Assessments' 'section 218 Notices' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations' 'materiality of Alleged Error' 'discretion to Refuse Relief']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Administrative Action Concerning an Application Under S. 206 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 / Reasons for Judgment on Urgent Amended Application for an Order of Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Commissioner's letter of 29 November 1994 made or conveyed a refusal of the applicant's s. 206 application for an extension of time to pay income tax." 'Whether the alleged decision involved failure to take relevant matters into account or taking an irrelevant matter into account.' 'Whether any alleged error materially affected the decision so as to justify setting it aside.' 'Whether, as a matter of discretion, the Court should require reconsideration of the application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because, on the proper construction of the correspondence, the Commissioner's letter did not make or convey the alleged refusal of the s. 206 application. In any event, the matters put before the Commissioner were skeletal, did not identify grounds of objection or a definite payment proposal, and lacked any rational tendency to produce the extension sought; any alleged error was not shown to have materially affected the result and it would not be a proper exercise of discretion to set aside the decision and require reconsideration of that particular application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed with costs.']